1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Umer Din and another, plaintiffs, appellants herein, through leave of the Court, have called in question the judgment, dated 5-11-1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby their Regular Second Appeal No,176 of 1988 against the judgment, dated 15-6-1988 of the Additional District Judge confirming the judgment, dated 27-1- 1987 passed by the Civil Judge dismissing their suit for possession through pre-emption, was dismissed. The leave granting order reads as follows:--- "The respondents purchased 57 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land situate in Chak No,46/J.B. Of Tehsil Faisalabad for a sum of Rs,2,92,500 by a registered deed, dated 29-3-1981. The petitioners filed a suit for preemption. During the hearing of the suit, three of the co-vendees received proportionate amounts of the sale consideration from the petitioners representing their shares in the land. Later, they appeared in Court and made statements that they had no objection if the petitioners' suit was decreed. The suit remained pending till the date specified in the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court in Said Kamal's case PLD 1986 SC 360 expired. On 27-1-1987 the trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that no decree could now be passed in favour of a pre-emptor. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed. They then filed a second appeal in the High Court which too failed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. ' In support of this petition it is contended that there had been an adjustment in so far as three of the co-vendees were concerned for they had not only received proportionate amounts of consideration but had also made statements in the Court confessing judgment. Thus, so far as they were concerned, the suit of the petitioners could not be dismissed. This contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted."
3. ' We have heard Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate, for the appellants; Mr. Hamid Ali Mirza, Advocate, for the respondents; and have perused the record of the case.
4. The facts of the case have been narrated in the leave granting order and need not he reiterated.
5. Admittedly, no decree for possession through preemption had been passed in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants before the target date of 31-7-1986 fixed in Said Kamal Shah's case PLD 1986 SC 360 and in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court including the case of Rozi Khan v. Syed Karim Shah 1992 SCM R 445 no decree could be passed by the trial Court on 27-1-1987 and rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants which was correctly maintained by the first appellate Court and the High Court.
6. ' The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously argued that before the said target date, three of the vendees/defendants, namely, Muhammad Hussain defendant No,7, Abdur Rehman defendant No,8 and Hakim Ali son of Chand defendant No, 10, had not only admitted the superior right of pre-emption of the plaintiffs/appellants and shown their willingness over the passing of the decree against them but had also received the proportionate sale consideration. The trial Court had recorded their statements and secured their signatures in token of their admissions. He emphasised that practically the suit had stood decreed to the extent of the share of the aforementioned vendees but the learned counsel for the appellants, either inadvertently or through negligence, failed to apply to the Court for passing an interim judgment under Order XII, rule 6. Be that as it may, since no judgment or decree was passed prior to 31-7-1986 no decree can now be passed in view of positive verdict of this Court referred to above and the judgment of the lower forums being in accord therewith cannot be modified or reversed.
7. However, under Order XXXIII, rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, this Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. In the case of Ghulam Hussain v.
8. Faiz Muhammad PLD 1991 SC 218 it was held that in the exercise of the aforesaid inherent powers a pro forma defendant, entitled to inherit property from his predecessor, though having not specifically claimed declaration of title or transposition as a plaintiff can be granted the relief under its inherent powers by the Court to do complete justice between the parties and thereby undoing an un-Islamic mode of inheritance whereby female heir has been deprived of her valuable right of inheritance. In the case of Muhammad Aslam v. Wazir Muhammad PLD 1985 SC 46 it was held that the appellate Court may take notice of and give effect to admitted or proved subsequent event in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, to shorten litigation and to do complete justice between the parties and mould relief according to altered circumstances in the larger interest of justice. Again in the case of Khurshid Ahmad v. Akhtar Hussain Gilani PLD 1991 SC 1070 it was observed that the sale can take place ()ratty which may precede the entry and attestation of mutation in the Revenue Record. Under section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act any person acquiring any interest in immovable property has to report such acquisition to the Patwari concerned who is required to enter such acquisition in the register of mutations. This also implies the completion of sale before the entry of mutation which oral transaction, if established, extinguishes the right of transferor and confers title on the transferee.
9. The statements of Abdul Rehman and Hakim Ali respondents recorded by the trial Court are admissions of fact whereby they have practically divested themselves of the ownership rights in the purchased property on receipt of the cash consideration which is deemed to be a sale of the property in favour of the appellants. In this view of the matter, in spite of the dismissal of their suit for possession through pre-emption they shall be having a cause of action to file a suit for declaration of their title on the basis of the admissions made by Abdul Rehman and Hakim Ali respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the admissions so made by his clients as they were made in the judicial proceedings. Consequently, in the exercise of inherent powers under Order XXXIII, rule 6 we declare the appellants owners of half share of the property purchased by Abdul Rehman and Hakim All s/o Chand in lieu of half of the sale consideration mentioned in the statements recorded by the Court and direct them to refund the balance of consideration. But the learned counsel for the appellants waived his rights to recover the amount from Abdul Rehman and Hakim Ali s/o Chand.
10. As regards Muhammad Hussain defendant No,7, he had died prior to the institution of the instant appeal but his name has been included in the panel of respondents and, as such, the appeal being against a dead person qua the rights of Muhammad Hussain, the same is obviously incompetent. He had also admitted the superior right of the plaintiffs/appellants and had expressed willingness over the passing of the decree having received proportionate sale consideration of Rs,I3,500. The appellants are entitled to the recovery of the said amount but since Muhammad Hussain is dead, the same shall be deemed to be a charge on his property and his heirs are also liable to pay the same to the extent of the property inherited by them from Muhammad Hussain. There is no order as to costs.